I thought this page was interesting...
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc
98% of the voters in Saturday's republican presidential primary were white. 1% black and 1% other.
The 2010 census showed that 27.9% of the South Carolina population is black (by comparison, Oklahoma is 7.4%).
Another 8.2% of South Carolinans are other race (Oklahoma is 8.2% American Indian and 8.9% Hispanic).
More than one third of the South Carolina's population is non-white. Yet none of that 35% appears to vote in republican presidential primaries.
The fact that minorities aren't registered republican or at least didn't vote for any of these candidates yesterday is interesting. What does it mean about the general election?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 22, 2012, 06:05:38 PM
More than one third of the South Carolina's population is non-white. Yet none of that 35% appears to vote in republican presidential primaries.
The fact that minorities aren't registered republican or at least didn't vote for any of these candidates yesterday is interesting. What does it mean about the general election?
I think it's pretty obvious by now. Those minorities have to be prevented from voting through voter ID laws and gerrymandering. The Republican elite would bring back poll taxes and literacy tests if they could.
My new favorite Sunday am show is UP with Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Melissa-Harris Perry, a guest, was much more subtle about the lack of black participation, saying, "I just didn't see anyone standing behind the candidates (after the election) who looked like me".
Really good show with guests ranging from David Stockman from the Reagan era to Elliot Spitzer. Like most New Yorkers and big city people they think and talk very fast but well worth the effort. Hayes talks faster, without pausing, than most people think. Stockman was well spoken, historically more accurate since he served in the Reagan administration, and blunt.
Any bets on Obama carrying South Carolina?
The most logical conclusion is the minorities are racist and will only vote for a black president.
Don't be so predictable.
South Carolina has a black republican Congressman. The black republicans in the state voted for John McCain four years ago against Mike Huckabee. They just didn't go to the polls on Saturday.
Why did they pass on this group of republican presidential hopefuls?
I think that is a rather curious statistic. South Carolina is currently 10% unemployed (9.9 to be exact). This means that real unemployment is around 20% in that state. Unemployment among African-Americans typically trends much higher than other groups. Furthermore, Southern folk (of all races) are typically more conservative and religious than their Northern counterparts.
One would assume that African American Republicans in that state would be very interested in any political participation that would put an end to the current policies that seporate many of them from being active in the workforce.
Perhaps they simply do not identify with these candidates on a political or cultural level. Newt is a white establishment politician with a pension for speaking truth to power, even when it is not in his best interest. Mitt is a white, big money Mormon, an alien concept to many from the South. The only republican candidate that would have produced a positive turnout among African-American Southerners was sniped from the the primaries.
I think there is something very important to consider. We will have to see if President Obama picks up any traction in the South, but I anticipate that momentum for the incumbent in any state with 10% unemployment will be very low among all races.
This will be a very interesting election, even more so than 4 years ago, because now President Obama has a complete track record to present instead of "Hopey Changey." This means that it will be far easier to measure votes based solely on race instead of policy.
It would be truly wonderful if we had a media that didn't turn politics into a race-bating game, but we do not, so I foresee many articles and reports focusing on race during this election cycle. Perhaps even more so than last election. After all, class struggle and race can be powerful allies when you lack a record of positive achievement.
Good post RM.
To quote Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
The remarks and behavior Grich has been exhibiting are at the very least stupid. But I think he knows what he's doing and where he's doing it. He waited for a journalist to bring up something remotely critical of his racially tinged remarks then jumped on him. In one case it was bonanza...Juan Williams... a black journalist (ironically a conservative intellectual journalist) who questioned his remarks about Obama on MLK day and got his head handed to him.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 23, 2012, 10:19:39 AM
The remarks and behavior Grich has been exhibiting are at the very least stupid. But I think he knows what he's doing and where he's doing it. He waited for a journalist to bring up something remotely critical of his racially tinged remarks then jumped on him. In one case it was bonanza...Juan Williams... a black journalist (ironically a conservative intellectual journalist) who questioned his remarks about Obama on MLK day and got his head handed to him.
So Newt is Julia Sugarbaker?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWG_Mu4rzwuMa0GtyRkKykrpbK5j86Nq2zdGAkUOy9D0_MDpjSOQ)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 23, 2012, 09:01:27 AM
Why did they pass on this group of republican presidential hopefuls?
Because one is Newt. Another is Mormon. The rest are posers and idiots.
Quote from: Townsend on January 23, 2012, 10:24:30 AM
So Newt is Julia Sugarbaker?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWG_Mu4rzwuMa0GtyRkKykrpbK5j86Nq2zdGAkUOy9D0_MDpjSOQ)
Sorry, never got into that show much. Artsy Fartsy southern decorators. Deliver me from the nineties Lord!
Quote from: AquaMan on January 23, 2012, 11:41:26 AM
Sorry, never got into that show much. Artsy Fartsy southern decorators. Deliver me from the nineties Lord!
The character would go off on someone with a self righteous rant and the sound guy would place in the 1990's "oooooo's" and "yay's/cheers/applause" to make it a mini "very special episode".
It was her character's "go to" thing and probably a way to make the actress feel as though she was doing something larger than a horrible sitcom...just like the gentlemen running for office...
Then yes.
Aren't we glad for hundreds of channels now? I saw a re-run yesterday of a 1922 film "classic" about witches. Stinker. But learned among other things that witches rubbed an ointment on their backs made from decomposing bodies snatched from the gallows that allowed them to fly. They also were required to kiss Satan's derriere each time they talked with him.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 08:45:30 AM
The most logical conclusion is the minorities are racist and will only vote for a black president.
This is how you got your nickname "Zero" right? (other than the similar looks?)
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 23, 2012, 12:09:28 PM
This is how you got your nickname "Zero" right? (other than the similar looks?)
Let's face it, the jobs picture is bleaker for black America under Obama than it was under Bush. If they vote in droves for him again, there's really only one good conclusion, they just don't want to vote for a white man.
Why would it be any different than the excuse that white people wouldn't vote for Obama or like his policies simply because he's black?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 12:54:55 PM
Let's face it, the jobs picture is bleaker for black America under Obama than it was under Bush. If they vote in droves for him again, there's really only one good conclusion, they just don't want to vote for a white man.
Why would it be any different than the excuse that white people wouldn't vote for Obama or like his policies simply because he's black?
I'm skeptical of your underlying assumption that blacks have it bleaker under Obama than Bush. My impression is that all middle class folks are hurting during this turndown. Both black and white are losing traction. If anything, whites had further to fall. If that is true, color is irrelevant.
They didn't vote because they either weren't invited or didn't see anything they liked....or they were too busy working. Any stats on how many voted in the last primary?
Quote from: AquaMan on January 23, 2012, 01:06:00 PM
I'm skeptical of your underlying assumption that blacks have it bleaker under Obama than Bush. My impression is that all middle class folks are hurting during this turndown. Both black and white are losing traction. If anything, whites had further to fall. If that is true, color is irrelevant.
They didn't vote because they either weren't invited or didn't see anything they liked....or they were too busy working. Any stats on how many voted in the last primary?
Busy working? It was a Saturday.
Unemployment amongst blacks is almost double that for whites, that's BLS statistics, not conjecture. While white people have been going back to work, the black workforce still can't find jobs.
Quote
by Dr. Boyce Watkins
I've heard people say that the expectations on Barack Obama are greater from our community than they have been for any other president. When someone highlights the fact that black unemployment has actually worsened under the Obama Administration while improving within the white community, the quickest reaction I typically hear is "He's president of all of America, not just black America," which appears to be an excuse for him not to do anything. There is no question that President Obama has bigger issues to worry about than us 'lil old black folks,' but we seem to become pretty important to the White House around election time.
While one might argue that some black Americans expect more from Obama than any other president, we must also remember that we supported him more than any other president. So, I argue that if we are being asked to expect the same from him that we would anyone else, then we should give him the same support as any other Democrat on election day. In other words, don't ask for more if you are not prepared to give more. Extraordinary benefits and expectations are a double-edged sword.
Has the Obama presidency been good for black America? It depends on who you ask. But what I ask, quite simply, is that we focus on tangible results and not symbolism when making our assessment. Singing Al Green songs might seem pretty cool, but it's not so cool when black Americans are singing the blues in the midst of foreclosure, poverty and unemployment unlike anything we've seen in the last 25 years.
I long for the day that the leading reason to support the Democrats in the next election doesn't simply amount to, "Well, the Republicans are going to be much worse." That's like a woman choosing to work for the pimp who beats her or the one who steals all of her money. Perhaps she should remove herself from prostitution entirely.
Three years ago, the Obama Administration made it clear that they would not have a targeted policy to deal with racial inequality in wealth or unemployment. The president said that he believed that "the rising tide will lift all boats," implying that targeted policy would not be necessary to deal with inequality. My Finance PhD led me to interpret these words as a racialized-version of trickle-down economics, another failed policy of the Reagan Administration. The notion that racial inequality will simply "fix itself" is socially lazy, naive and counterproductive. The same government that played a role in solidifying inequality in our society must also play a part in correcting that inequality – we didn't get to this place by ourselves.
Well, the facts have made it clear that the "rising tides" policy has been a miserable failure. Over the last three years, white unemployment has improved, while black unemployment has gotten worse. During the last two months, when the Obama Administration celebrated improved employment numbers for the economy, the fact was that these improvements missed the black community entirely. During the past year, white unemployment has dropped from 8.3% to 7.5%, while black unemployment has risen from 15.2% to 15.8%, more than double that of white Americans.
Supporting a black president is very important. But the same courage that it takes for us to get out and vote for the president must be returned with courageous policy that reflects the interests of those who support him. You can't ask for extraordinary support and then turn around and say, "Hey, I'm just a regular guy." Also, avoiding favoritism toward the black community is very different from the abandonment of political responsibility. There are times when it seems that the administration works so hard to avoid appearing biased that it goes to the other extreme – sort of like when a father hires his son and then treats him worse than everyone else.
At the end of the day, the proof must be in the pudding. If the numbers on unemployment, foreclosure and wealth inequality show that Obama has done a good job for black Americans, then we should support him. But if the numbers do not justify his re-election, we should not allow anyone to play the race card to convince us to vote blindly. In fact, I don't even blame those who choose to sit out of the election in protest. Al Sharpton, Tom Joyner, Steve Harvey, Melissa Harris Perry or other Obama surrogates should not be making the decision for you – taking care of a few select members of the black community is not the same as taking care of the community itself. We must be sure to vote intelligently.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Professor at Syracusef[sic] University and founder of the Your Black World Coalition. To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here.
http://www.yourblackworld.com/2012/01/22/dr-boyce-should-black-america-expect-more-from-obama-than-any-other-president/
Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 01:34:16 PM
Busy working? It was a Saturday.
Unemployment amongst blacks is almost double that for whites, that's BLS statistics, not conjecture. While white people have been going back to work, the black workforce still can't find jobs.
Why is that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/african-american-pastors-express-support-for-occupy-movement/2012/01/18/gIQAyofFEQ_story.html
Quote
"This is the continuation of the [civil rights] movement. It was the economic movement that King was killed for," said Hagler, of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Northeast Washington.
"When Dr. King was killed, he was . . . fighting for the rights of sanitation workers," Coates said. "It is critically important that we relate our faith to issues of economic justice and systemic inequality."
Po' folks work on Saturdays. Second jobs are often on weekends.
The lowest segments of an economy usually suffer the worst. Teenagers are now suffering much more in unemployment as well since a lot of older, more experienced workers are having to migrate to those jobs. I suppose everything is your fault when you're the sitting prez, nonetheless it seems unlikely that minorities and teenagers have forgotten how we got to this miserable condition.
Ever notice that Newt kinda looks like a fat woman's knee?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 02:00:15 PM
Ever notice that Newt kinda looks like a fat woman's knee?
That is mean on so many levels. You should go find a fat woman and apologize.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 23, 2012, 02:20:02 PM
That is mean on so many levels. You should go find a fat woman and apologize.
Agreed.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 12:54:55 PM
Let's face it, the jobs picture is bleaker for black America under Obama than it was under Bush. If they vote in droves for him again, there's really only one good conclusion, they just don't want to vote for a white man.
Why would it be any different than the excuse that white people wouldn't vote for Obama or like his policies simply because he's black?
The jobs picture is definitely bleaker for black America under Obama, that's indisputable. The question is always where the voters perceive the fault lies. You only give two options for blame among African Americans -- it's either Obama or Bush -- when the truth is undoubtedly far more complex. Obama has explicitly taken blame for the economy time and again, but most people who aren't named Guido know that there's no way he can be completely responsible for where things are now. Likewise, Bush had some awful policies but even he isn't fully responsible for our current economy. And even before Bush, the economic position of African Americans as a group has been tenuous at best. It's quiet possible that African American voters have a sense that where they are today is the fault of short, medium, and long term policy and players.
Like I've said before, I just don't think what you're getting at is a good argument. It doesn't prove that black people are racist if they vote for Obama, it only proves that they don't fault him entirely for their deteriorating positions and/or that the alternative is just too awful to consider. And honestly, knowing the history of the GOP vis a vis race relations, I just can't see a reason for African Americans to ever really vote for them. Will they vote for him out of pure affinity? Absolutely. But there're other logical reasons as well, none of them based on "hell yeah he's a fellow black dude."
Quote from: we vs us on January 23, 2012, 03:30:11 PM
The jobs picture is definitely bleaker for black America under Obama, that's indisputable. The question is always where the voters perceive the fault lies. You only give two options for blame among African Americans -- it's either Obama or Bush -- when the truth is undoubtedly far more complex. Obama has explicitly taken blame for the economy time and again, but most people who aren't named Guido know that there's no way he can be completely responsible for where things are now. Likewise, Bush had some awful policies but even he isn't fully responsible for our current economy. And even before Bush, the economic position of African Americans as a group has been tenuous at best. It's quiet possible that African American voters have a sense that where they are today is the fault of short, medium, and long term policy and players.
Like I've said before, I just don't think what you're getting at is a good argument. It doesn't prove that black people are racist if they vote for Obama, it only proves that they don't fault him entirely for their deteriorating positions and/or that the alternative is just too awful to consider. And honestly, knowing the history of the GOP vis a vis race relations, I just can't see a reason for African Americans to ever really vote for them. Will they vote for him out of pure affinity? Absolutely. But there're other logical reasons as well, none of them based on "hell yeah he's a fellow black dude."
You and I both realize private sector jobs don't begin and end with one president. There's a good amount of Americans who will either credit or crucify a president for jobs created or lost though. If the economy had turned around and unemployment were at less than 5% again, you can bet President Obama's approval numbers would be 60% or better.
I think you miss the cultural reality that there are a good number of people people who do vote with a tribal mentality. "He's one of us." Not even on a racial basis but "He's a northerner", "He's a fellow Tea Party Conservative", or even singular issue: "She's against abortion". Let's see you construct and argument that doesn't happen.
If African Americans were in touch with their heritage, they'd remember that Republicans did far more for their emancipation and the passage of CRA's than Democrats.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 03:37:09 PM
You and I both realize private sector jobs don't begin and end with one president. There's a good amount of Americans who will either credit or crucify a president for jobs created or lost though. If the economy had turned around and unemployment were at less than 5% again, you can bet President Obama's approval numbers would still be 6045% or better.
I think you miss the cultural reality that there are a good number of people people who do vote with a tribal mentality. "He's one of us." Not even on a racial basis but "He's a northerner", "He's a fellow Tea Party Conservative", or even singular issue: "She's against abortion". Let's see you construct and argument that doesn't happen.
If African Americans were in touch with their heritage, they'd remember that mid 19th century Republicans did far more for their emancipation and the passage of CRA's than Democrats.
You have a tendency to believe your own publicity.... ::)
Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 09:56:36 AM
I think that is a rather curious statistic. South Carolina is currently 10% unemployed (9.9 to be exact). This means that real unemployment is around 20% in that state. Unemployment among African-Americans typically trends much higher than other groups.
Don't make up numbers, it just makes you look lazy.
Quote
One would assume that African American Republicans in that state would be very interested in any political participation that would put an end to the current policies that seporate many of them from being active in the workforce.
One would also assume they're not interested in voting for a crop of candidates who are mostly, but not quite entirely, openly racist or like to blow on the racist dog whistles a little too often. Furthermore, one might assume that they have noticed unemployment declining since the middle of the year and fewer and fewer mass layoffs.
Quote
This will be a very interesting election, even more so than 4 years ago, because now President Obama has a complete track record to present instead of "Hopey Changey." This means that it will be far easier to measure votes based solely on race instead of policy.
What on earth are you talking about?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 03:37:09 PM
If African Americans were in touch with their heritage, they'd remember that Republicans did far more for their emancipation and the passage of CRA's than Democrats.
That was back before Republicans were Republicans. You'll note that even within 20 years or so, those guys had all but forgotten about black people, which directly led to the Jim Crow era.
It happened again.
In Florida, 16% of the voters are black. In today's presidential primary, only 1% of the GOP voters were black. Like South Carolina, Florida has a black republican congressman.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/fl?hpt=hp_t1
Why are black republicans not going to the polls for these candidates?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 31, 2012, 09:48:29 PM
It happened again.
In Florida, 16% of the voters are black. In today's presidential primary, only 1% of the GOP voters were black. Like South Carolina, Florida has a black republican congressman.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/fl?hpt=hp_t1
Why are black republicans not going to the polls for these candidates?
What percentage of Florida black Republicans normally vote in a primary?
Edit: Or, why are Florida black Republicans not being polled in relation to their proportion of the Republican party?
I don't know where to find that information.
I do know that black republicans are not voting in this primary. Do they not think that Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul are worthy of their vote? Is this some sort of organized protest? Have they been converted over to the democratic side by four years of a black president?
The numbers are too stark to not ponder what they mean.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 01, 2012, 06:50:10 AM
I don't know where to find that information.
I do know that black republicans are not voting in this primary. Do they not think that Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul are worthy of their vote? Is this some sort of organized protest? Have they been converted over to the democratic side by four years of a black president?
You may be drooling a bit too much but I cannot prove any reason otherwise.
QuoteThe numbers are too stark to not ponder what they mean.
It would appear that way on the surface but without something to compare them to it's mostly wishful thinking.
While I would like everybody to vote for democrats, my wishes don't matter here.
I have followed Tulsa politics for a log time and found that generally women vote for women for local offices. I am amazed at how regularly that happens. I talk politics all the time and know republican women who voted for Kathy Taylor in droves.
I don't have enough data to see if blacks only vote for blacks in Tulsa. There is almost never a race in traditional black districts where there is a black candidate running against a white candidate. Of course, there are very few black republicans in Tulsa as well.
Its a good question Mike. To hear the republicans talk in Florida they see their state as a microcosm of the rest of the country. And, like you and Conan pointe out, many people vote for their own tribe whether it be man/woman, north/south, hispanic/black/white, etc. It is human nature.
If a state with 16% black population only produces 1% turnout in a republican primary, then it means something. Either many black republicans are hesitant with this crop, they have jumped ship or they simply don't vote in primaries.
At any rate, I don't see Florida as representing anything, but Florida.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 31, 2012, 09:48:29 PM
It happened again.
In Florida, 16% of the voters are black. In today's presidential primary, only 1% of the GOP voters were black. Like South Carolina, Florida has a black republican congressman.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/fl?hpt=hp_t1
Why are black republicans not going to the polls for these candidates?
Not really a surprise when you consider that probably 95% of the black voters in Florida are Democrats. I suspect nationwide, less than 10% of voting blacks are registered Republicans. I know the stats are out there, I simply don't have time to look them up at the moment. I would have loved to see Herman Cain at least make it to a few of the major primary states to see if he could have mobilized the black vote. Personally, I suspect it still would have had a negligible effect as most blacks likely don't identify with a black corporate CEO who is active in GOP politics. Perhaps if we did not already have either a black candidate or black sitting president that more blacks may have come out to vote for Cain, but still not sure if it would have caused them to change party affiliation in closed primary states.
I suspect that the GOP candidates have pretty well ceded the black vote to Democrats and don't make a huge effort to appeal to them. Why spend bucket-loads of money courting a demographic which will never vote for you when it's a challenge to get people of your own party out to vote for you?
What does the modern GOP offer in terms of appeal to low income black voters? Nothing. Every entitlement cut ends up targeting the under classes and the Democrats do a good job of whipping up fear, suspicion, hatred of Republican candidates amongst low-income minorities.
Speaking along the lines of tribal logic, it appears that Marco Rubio may be mobilizing more Hispanics to vote Republican. I had the primaries on last night for background noise while I was working on my house and they were interviewing the mayor of Miami who is an Hispanic conservative. At least on the surface, it appears upwardly-mobile Hispanics are being courted by the GOP.
Why would the GOP court upwardly mobile Hispanics and not upwardly mobile Blacks?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 01, 2012, 10:34:55 AM
Why would the GOP court upwardly mobile Hispanics and not upwardly mobile Blacks?
Thanks for pointing that out. Actually, I had a sentence in there mentioning that the GOP does seem to appeal to some upwardly-mobile blacks and they seem to feel at home in the GOP. I'd be curious to know how many blacks who consider themselves conservative voted for Obama in '08 and how many will vote for him again this year.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 01, 2012, 10:34:55 AM
Why would the GOP court upwardly mobile Hispanics and not upwardly mobile Blacks?
It's a good move. Even if African Americans are as a group becoming more upwardly mobile and even if they're voting in increasing numbers, the GOP can cede them to the Dems with relatively small long term impact. Heck, they've been ceded for decades already. The Hispanic demographic is so much bigger and slated to grow so much faster in the near and medium term that abandoning them would be suicide for the GOP.
I honestly don't see, however, how much progress the GOP can really make with Hispanics until they revamp their approach to immigration. That's THE gateway issue to that demographic. If the GOP can find a way to reconcile that with the nativist element in the party, then there'd be no stopping them. But I honestly don't think that can happen until the GOP has a generational turnover. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of the GOP's policy problems are generational. Sadly for the GOP, the generation that needs to turn over is just coming into seniority.
And re: upward mobility and GOPness . . . That's a recognized trend, isn't it? The more a given group (men, women, blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, gays, Catholics, your choice) has to protect in terms of resources the more defensive of those resources they become. And that, to me, is as good a definition of "conservative" as any.
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2012, 10:54:13 AM
It's a good move. Even if African Americans are as a group becoming more upwardly mobile and even if they're voting in increasing numbers, the GOP can cede them to the Dems with relatively small long term impact. Heck, they've been ceded for decades already. The Hispanic demographic is so much bigger and slated to grow so much faster in the near and medium term that abandoning them would be suicide for the GOP.
I honestly don't see, however, how much progress the GOP can really make with Hispanics until they revamp their approach to immigration. That's THE gateway issue to that demographic. If the GOP can find a way to reconcile that with the nativist element in the party, then there'd be no stopping them. But I honestly don't think that can happen until the GOP has a generational turnover. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of the GOP's policy problems are generational. Sadly for the GOP, the generation that needs to turn over is just coming into seniority.
The GOP is going to have to overcome the redneck mentality that "We need to kick all those damn Heeespanics out and let them come back to the front gate one-by-one!"
There's a sensible solution for immigration and dealing with those already within our borders. I believe we've beat the topic well into the ground on here so no need to expand greatly on it. Any candidate who proposes anything other than some sort of logical path to citizenship which allows illegals to remain in the country until they can go through proper channels to secure a visa and eventually attain American citizenship is being disingenuous or doesn't want to take a serious and practical approach to the problem.
Don't minimize the religion factor in courting Hispanics. They are strongly Catholic. When you add their religion to their immigration concerns, Romney faces an uphill battle with them. But, I agree, the party needs them for their future success.
There are very conservative black voters in America. I don't disagree with the stat that 90% of black registered voters are registered as democrats, but I also know that like all demographics, voters are willing to put party consideration aside for someone they relate to.
Black voters in the south continually vote for republicans. The governors of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas are all republicans. Each of those states registered voters at least 16% black.
But they didn't vote in the 2012 primaries. Why?
Was it because they don't relate to Mitt? Do they not like the Newt?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 11:05:01 AM
There's a sensible solution for immigration and dealing with those already within our borders.
Absolutely. You're 100% correct. But the question is how dependent the GOP is on not solving immigration in the middle -- which is where it will have to be solved. To date, IMO, the GOP tactic is to gently but firmly tell Hispanics that they should see the virtue in the GOP approach, rather than to modify the approach to fit the demographic. This is similar to the argument that African Americans should vote Republican because Republicans are the party of personal responsibility and African Americans -- especially the poor -- should recognize that that's what they need to get ahead.
In the end, that approach is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Asking a demographic with firmly held beliefs to jettison those beliefs in order to vote for the Republican orthodoxy. Not a particularly good way of broadening your appeal.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 01, 2012, 11:39:28 AM
There are very conservative black voters in America. I don't disagree with the stat that 90% of black registered voters are registered as democrats, but I also know that like all demographics, voters are willing to put party consideration aside for someone they relate to.
Black voters in the south continually vote for republicans. The governors of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas are all republicans. Each of those states registered voters at least 16% black.
But they didn't vote in the 2012 primaries. Why?
Was it because they don't relate to Mitt? Do they not like the Newt?
Unless I'm mistaken, I think these are closed primaries which would explain a lack of black voter turn-out. If less than 5% of all registered Republicans are black, then I'd say this would be a fairly representative vote amongst the GOP. You'd have to look at previous presidential election year primary results to see if this is a real trend on Newt or Mitt.
Whoa, who ever guessed we'd have a presidential election between men named Barack and either Mitt or Newt?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 01, 2012, 11:35:24 AM
Don't minimize the religion factor in courting Hispanics. They are strongly Catholic. When you add their religion to their immigration concerns, Romney faces an uphill battle with them. But, I agree, the party needs them for their future success.
Hispanics have very traditional family values which actually seem more in line with the Christian conservatives: anti-abortion, and they generally frown on homosexuality and gay marriage.
I'd say the immigration issue is about the only thing which makes them favor the Democrats, that's why the GOP would be wise to adopt sensible immigration policy.
The republican party had a reasonable immigration policy and a great spokesperson for the issue.
From Ronald Reagan's last paragraphs of his farewell speech as President...
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 11:47:09 AM
Hispanics have very traditional family values which actually seem more in line with the Christian conservatives: anti-abortion, and they generally frown on homosexuality and gay marriage.
I'd say the immigration issue is about the only thing which makes them favor the Democrats, that's why the GOP would be wise to adopt sensible immigration policy.
Yep, agreed again. That's why if the GOP could ever get its head around a middle way immigration policy, the Dems would be screwed. I have to say, though, time is getting short for that to happen. The longer the GOP waits, the more entrenched voting patterns become. The longer the GOP is "anti-immigration," the longer it will be perceived as anti-immigration. There are now a couple of solid Dem Hispanic generations in the US . . . much longer and the GOP risks them becoming more like the African American bloc -- a core Dem constituency.
We should have moved to better secure the borders after the amnesty act of '86 and a more orderly guest worker program. What's funny is the "Reagan Conservatives" don't seem to share his ideas on immigration.
I suspect the Bushes saw the benefit of cheap labor in the economy and essentially didn't want to do anything substantive on the issue. This seems ironic to me, because Bush II saw first-hand the problems with disorderly immigration as governor of Texas.
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2012, 11:55:25 AM
Yep, agreed again. That's why if the GOP could ever get its head around a middle way immigration policy, the Dems would be screwed. I have to say, though, time is getting short for that to happen. The longer the GOP waits, the more entrenched voting patterns become. The longer the GOP is "anti-immigration," the longer it will be perceived as anti-immigration. There are now a couple of solid Dem Hispanic generations in the US . . . much longer and the GOP risks them becoming more like the African American bloc -- a core Dem constituency.
With Republicans like Ralph (no eating dead baby) Shortey and Sally (Gay's worse than terrorist) Kern, it's not looking too positive on the reasoning thing.
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2012, 11:55:25 AM
Yep, agreed again. That's why if the GOP could ever get its head around a middle way immigration policy, the Dems would be screwed. I have to say, though, time is getting short for that to happen. The longer the GOP waits, the more entrenched voting patterns become. The longer the GOP is "anti-immigration," the longer it will be perceived as anti-immigration. There are now a couple of solid Dem Hispanic generations in the US . . . much longer and the GOP risks them becoming more like the African American bloc -- a core Dem constituency.
I only caught bits and pieces last night as they were talking to the mayor of Miami, but it sounds like Cuban-Americans are fairly conservative. The Cubans have pretty well assimilated into the U.S. I would suspect virtually all of the Cuban refugees from the major flotillas of the 1980s have become citizens.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 11:47:09 AM
Hispanics have very traditional family values which actually seem more in line with the Christian conservatives: anti-abortion, and they generally frown on homosexuality and gay marriage.
I'd say the immigration issue is about the only thing which makes them favor the Democrats, that's why the GOP would be wise to adopt sensible immigration policy.
I wasn't being specific enough. I doubt they can identify with the Mormon religion and his immigration stance. Catholics are all about generosity, forgiveness, reaching out to help the poor and weak. I can't see that those elements are perceived as part of the Mormon image, though indeed they may excel at them.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 01, 2012, 12:36:15 PM
I wasn't being specific enough. I doubt they can identify with the Mormon religion and his immigration stance. Catholics are all about generosity, forgiveness, reaching out to help the poor and weak. I can't see that those elements are perceived as part of the Mormon image, though indeed they may excel at them.
Mormonism and Catholicism are actually very similar in those regards. But the whole thing of the Book of Mormon considering the Catholic Church to be a whore on the Christian faith could be a sticky point if less-informed Hispanics looked deeper into what the Book Of Mormon has to say about Catholicism.
Here's a good read from the Rolling Stone blog on why his Mormonism is a non-issue for most voters:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-mitt-romneys-mormonism-doesnt-matter-20120131
And here's why Hispanics won't identify with Romney:
Quote""As for Romney, immigration and the Hispanic vote, put a fork in him. He's done, cooked, burnt," said Frank Sharry, the founder and executive director of the Democratic group America's Voice. Sharry said Democrats would have had reason to fear an immigration moderate with strong Hispanic credentials like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who recently warned his party to moderate its "tone" on immigration.
But the former Massachusetts governor, he argued, finds himself in an impossible position. "What can Romney do? If he flip-flops in the general, he'll piss off his new hard-liner friends on the right and underscore his flip-flopping reputation; he stays hard right and [angers] the fastest growing voter bloc in the country."
Some Republicans have come around to the same opinion.
"Romney has done himself some real damage," said Ana Navarro, a Florida Republican who has advised John McCain and Jeb Bush. "Romney has now thrown Obama a lifesaver on the issue. It's been stupid and unnecessary. He could have been more nuanced and left himself room to maneuver."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71988.html#ixzz1l9yHIrKs
He's got too much on the record indicating he's more of a hard-liner on immigration. However, if he had Rubio with a running mate, he might get more Hispanic votes. And if Rubio became VP, perhaps there could be some better moderate dialogue on immigration reform.
Jeb Bush as a running mate may help as well.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 01, 2012, 01:42:14 PM
Jeb Bush as a running mate may help as well.
Hahaha! Yeah might help with ending up with 25% of the popular vote and handing President Obama a landslide reminiscent of 1984. Jeb might resonate well with Florida Hispanics but he would fall on deaf ears with the general electorate, including legions of Republicans.
I heard some blurbs about Romney clearing the way for a Jeb Bush run in 2016, but I don't buy it. Considering there's been a Bush in the executive branch for 20 out of the last 32 years, most people would say:
"ANYONE BUT A BUSH!"
Certainly doesn't look like Newt's courting the #2, unless you are actually talking about #2!
I can see Santorum positioning himself for the spot. That would satisfy a broad spectrum of Republican support.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 12:02:45 PM
I only caught bits and pieces last night as they were talking to the mayor of Miami, but it sounds like Cuban-Americans are fairly conservative. The Cubans have pretty well assimilated into the U.S. I would suspect virtually all of the Cuban refugees from the major flotillas of the 1980s have become citizens.
I was actually talking to some people about the politics of the Florida Cubans when I was in Miami in December. Cubans are a drop in the bucket, compared to other islanders and other spanish-speaking immigrants, but the older ones are highly vocal and typically Republican because they see authoritarian communism around every corner. The younger generations tend to trend more Democratic in their voting patterns, as do the other immigrant populations. Since they don't have the fear of communism come to America driving much of their thought process, they know whose immigration planks will see the remainder of their families left back home.
The other x-factor driving a lot of latinos towards Democrats is the Ollie North rat bucking that was going on in many of their countries for years and years. We basically taught them to be afraid of Republicans. When someone supports roving rape and death squads that were deployed against people much like yourself, you tend not to forget.
It is true that a lot of them are rather Catholic, but they mostly don't treat religion like the fundies do. Some of the small town folks do, but it's not really the norm, especially among the younger generations.
Quote from: nathanm on February 01, 2012, 04:01:37 PM
I was actually talking to some people about the politics of the Florida Cubans when I was in Miami in December. Cubans are a drop in the bucket, compared to other islanders and other spanish-speaking immigrants, but the older ones are highly vocal and typically Republican because they see authoritarian communism around every corner. The younger generations tend to trend more Democratic in their voting patterns, as do the other immigrant populations. Since they don't have the fear of communism come to America driving much of their thought process, they know whose immigration planks will see the remainder of their families left back home.
The other x-factor driving a lot of latinos towards Democrats is the Ollie North rat bucking that was going on in many of their countries for years and years. We basically taught them to be afraid of Republicans. When someone supports roving rape and death squads that were deployed against people much like yourself, you tend not to forget.
It is true that a lot of them are rather Catholic, but they mostly don't treat religion like the fundies do. Some of the small town folks do, but it's not really the norm, especially among the younger generations.
Interesting, thanks for the perspective.
So basically Catholic Hispanics are better at the concept of separation of church and state than fundies, eh? ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 11:05:01 AM
There's a sensible solution for immigration and dealing with those already within our borders. I believe we've beat the topic well into the ground on here so no need to expand greatly on it. Any candidate who proposes anything other than some sort of logical path to citizenship which allows illegals to remain in the country until they can go through proper channels to secure a visa and eventually attain American citizenship is being disingenuous or doesn't want to take a serious and practical approach to the problem.
What is it with you?? You come up with stuff like this that you say you believe that is quintessential liberal social policy (good stuff, I might add). And then you go on about the right like they have, or are, an answer to everything. You must resolve that inner conflict and just admit to yourself that you really aren't all that extremist right wing nut job stuff inside!
Does it scare you how much I agree with you on this topic?? (Gotta admit, I'm a little nervous...)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 04:31:25 PM
So basically Catholic Hispanics are better at the concept of separation of church and state than fundies, eh? ;)
Quite possibly.
There are places in this country (parts of the south) where kids are taught in church from the get-go that Catholics are Communists. Kind of hard to create common cause with people that you believe are the enemy at the most basic level. (Kind of makes me wonder how so many of those Cuban refugees ended up so strongly Republican.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 09:12:05 AM
What is it with you?? You come up with stuff like this that you say you believe that is quintessential liberal social policy (good stuff, I might add). And then you go on about the right like they have, or are, an answer to everything. You must resolve that inner conflict and just admit to yourself that you really aren't all that extremist right wing nut job stuff inside!
Does is scare you how much I agree with you on this topic?? (Gotta admit, I'm a little nervous...)
There's really no other logical way to deal with immigration. Trying to round up millions of illegal aliens and return them to their homelands would be an expensive and impossible proposition. The first leader who gets real on immigration reform earns a voting bloc of millions of Hispanics for their party. If Romney wins, he would do well to approach immigration in this way. However, based on his previous statements on immigration, I'm not sure he will. So what if he pisses off the far right of the GOP? They account for maybe 20% of the total American Electorate. He could have a second term election much like Reagan did in 1984 if the economy had turned around and he made immigration reform his landmark legacy bill.
Republican politicians would do well to figure something out about the far right wing of the party by seeing what Democrats have figured out about the far left wing of their party: you don't have to pander to the extremes of the party because there is simply no way a staunch liberal would shift support to the GOP and vice versa.
I hear far more about liberals complaining that Democrats sold them out with moderate policies than I do the far right saying the GOP sold them out. The reason being is that GOP members keep playing to the far right instead of adopting a more moderate approach which is what is needed to get the country moving in the right direction again.
I'm probably the most moderate person on TNF. I don't really consider my views ever as partisan, just common sense. There are some parts of traditional GOP dogma I agree with and some parts of traditional Democrat dogma I agree with. I'm what I self-describe as a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
I suppose I'm the result of what happens when a Democrat marries a Republican. My dad was a Democrat because if he wanted to go anywhere politically back in the 1960's in Oklahoma, he had to be a Democrat. I actually used to have views which aligned much more with the right, but I've become more of a Libertarian as I've gotten older.
And for the record: I don't think absolute amnesty is any sort of a solution. I think there needs to be a path to citizenship that has to be followed as well as criminal background screening so we can send the undesirables and trouble-makers back while welcoming those who really want to be productive and law-abiding American citizens. I realize that's somewhat of an oxymoron since, by definition, they are criminals if they migrated here and bypassed the legal channels to do so.
Grich is busy making moderate as bad a word as Liberal. Perhaps we should just call anyone with moderate views, pragmatics or realists or even something made up. Just keep changing the names till he gets tired. How about Fabulists?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 02, 2012, 10:20:14 AM
How about Fabulists?
That's who threw glitter all over Romney yesterday.
Yeah, like he never put glitter in his hair before....
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 10:00:09 AM
There's really no other logical way to deal with immigration. Trying to round up millions of illegal aliens and return them to their homelands would be an expensive and impossible proposition. The first leader who gets real on immigration reform earns a voting bloc of millions of Hispanics for their party. If Romney wins, he would do well to approach immigration in this way. However, based on his previous statements on immigration, I'm not sure he will. So what if he pisses off the far right of the GOP? They account for maybe 20% of the total American Electorate. He could have a second term election much like Reagan did in 1984 if the economy had turned around and he made immigration reform his landmark legacy bill.
Republican politicians would do well to figure something out about the far right wing of the party by seeing what Democrats have figured out about the far left wing of their party: you don't have to pander to the extremes of the party because there is simply no way a staunch liberal would shift support to the GOP and vice versa.
I hear far more about liberals complaining that Democrats sold them out with moderate policies than I do the far right saying the GOP sold them out. The reason being is that GOP members keep playing to the far right instead of adopting a more moderate approach which is what is needed to get the country moving in the right direction again.
I'm probably the most moderate person on TNF. I don't really consider my views ever as partisan, just common sense. There are some parts of traditional GOP dogma I agree with and some parts of traditional Democrat dogma I agree with. I'm what I self-describe as a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
I suppose I'm the result of what happens when a Democrat marries a Republican. My dad was a Democrat because if he wanted to go anywhere politically back in the 1960's in Oklahoma, he had to be a Democrat. I actually used to have views which aligned much more with the right, but I've become more of a Libertarian as I've gotten older.
I pretty much agree completely. With similar family background.
Democrats have pretty well abandoned far left - evidenced by the fact that they elected a Republican President (Obama).
I think Obama risked far too much of his legacy on health care reform which has left many on the far left unhappy and pretty much everyone on the right unhappy.
In terms of legacy, he would have been better served with immigration reform which he probably could have gotten through with Dem majorities in '09 and '10.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
I think Obama risked far too much of his legacy on health care reform which has left many on the far left unhappy and pretty much everyone on the right unhappy.
In terms of legacy, he would have been better served with immigration reform which he probably could have gotten through with Dem majorities in '09 and '10.
I call bs.... 30,000,000 more Americans now have health insurance. Had the doctors and big pharma not taken advantage of the population, reform would never have been possible. These two can no longer abuse the system. As far as the Insurance industry, single payer will eventually replace them.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 02, 2012, 03:56:05 PM
I call bs.... 30,000,000 more Americans now have health insurance. Had the doctors and big pharma not taken advantage of the population, reform would never have been possible. These two can no longer abuse the system. As far as the Insurance industry, single payer will eventually replace them.
I call BS on your BS call. Those 30 million don't all have coverage as of yet and you'd be a fool to believe that suddenly big insurance, big pharma, and big medicine aren't still driving medicine. Just wait. If it ever does go single payer, you can bet it's going to be the result of big time corruption and will come with a necessary increase in cost that follows when competition is eliminated. I hope like hell I'm wrong, but there's a whole lot of rainbows and unicorns that got sold to the public in health care "reform"
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 04:00:37 PM
I hope like hell I'm wrong, but there's a whole lot of rainbows and unicorns that got sold to the public in health care "reform"
Huh? Like what?
Sorry, we've been down this road. Health Care got dicked up when
advertisement it became "capitalistic"...
To get back on topic, at least white people showed up to vote in SC unlike Floreeduh. If I were head of the DNC, my focus would be on the Congressional elections. No need to get in the way of a Presidential landslide.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
I think Obama risked far too much of his legacy on health care reform which has left many on the far left unhappy and pretty much everyone on the right unhappy.
It would be comical if it weren't so tragically ignorant the way some people I work with talk about that bill. It has done me no good whatsoever, but I work with over a dozen guys - and there are probably more that I don't know about, it's a big place - who go on and on about it, but guess what? Their kids between 21 and 26 are now back on the insurance.
Seems kind of counter productive as well as hypocritical and disingenuous to grumble about something that has done one so much good. But most Okies are that way...as we can see by our election results.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 04:39:47 PM
I work with over a dozen guys - and there are probably more that I don't know about, it's a big place. . .
Sounds like a real sausage-fest!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 04:39:47 PM
It would be comical if it weren't so tragically ignorant the way some people I work with talk about that bill. It has done me no good whatsoever, but I work with over a dozen guys - and there are probably more that I don't know about, it's a big place - who go on and on about it, but guess what? Their kids between 21 and 26 are now back on the insurance.
Seems kind of counter productive as well as hypocritical and disingenuous to grumble about something that has done one so much good. But most Okies are that way...as we can see by our election results.
They appear to be following the Warren Buffett example.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 02, 2012, 06:37:35 PM
They appear to be following the Warren Buffett example.
You would too, if you had kids. Guaranteed.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 02, 2012, 09:46:01 PM
You would too, if you had kids. Guaranteed.
No doubt, if I had kids and they were still 26 or less.
My comment was more along the line of WB having every right to complain about the tax rates and then take advantage of them but it's not fair for others to complain about his words/actions
AND.....
I got the impression you were complaining about your co-workers' hypocrisy which I see as no different than WB.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 02, 2012, 10:22:46 PM
I got the impression you were complaining about your co-workers' hypocrisy which I see as no different than WB.
Not complaining, just observing the dichotomy of how a person can say one thing, then do another. If they had the conviction of their beliefs that the health care law was wrong, they would not partake. Anything else is hypocritical.
They are not required by tax law to use those items, whereas Warren Buffet and his organization is required by law to use the tax code the way it is written. With no hypocrisy whatsoever, he can comment that it is unfair and advocate change.
What you are saying is that it is hypocritical for me to advocate decriminalization of marijuana without actually using it.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2012, 08:42:25 AM
They are not required by tax law to use those items, whereas Warren Buffet and his organization is required by law to use the tax code the way it is written. With no hypocrisy whatsoever, he can comment that it is unfair and advocate change.
The laws prescribe the
minimum amount he is required to pay. Part of his claim of being unfair is that he is not paying enough. He could pay more.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 03, 2012, 10:08:12 AM
The laws prescribe the minimum amount he is required to pay. Part of his claim of being unfair is that he is not paying enough. He could pay more.
The maximum is ALSO dictated by the principal of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. He can donate his own money - as he has stated in a matching donation scenario, so he already IS paying more.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2012, 12:54:34 PM
The maximum is ALSO dictated by the principal of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. He can donate his own money - as he has stated in a matching donation scenario, so he already IS paying more.
So Warren is just another greedy corporatist. Come on, you can say it!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 03, 2012, 01:02:29 PM
So Warren is just another greedy corporatist. Come on, you can say it!
Absolutely, he is. But he does it in a fundamentally different way. And shows that being a true capitalist can be very rewarding.
(Contrast that to the mixed performance of Bill Gates - wildly successful, but with a proven inability to perform without questionable actions as proven by numerous corporate convictions. A very mixed bag.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2012, 01:08:03 PM
Absolutely, he is. But he does it in a fundamentally different way. And shows that being a true capitalist can be very rewarding.
(Contrast that to the mixed performance of Bill Gates - wildly successful, but with a proven inability to perform without questionable actions as proven by numerous corporate convictions. A very mixed bag.)
The wealthier you get the more remoras surround you. No matter how ethical you are, the parasites will attempt to bleed you or burrow into your flesh. The only way you can avoid this is to make money by proxy.
Mr. Buffet knows the value of making money by proxy. No one can choke on his product, slip in his isles, or claim intellectual property rights to his invention. With a single decision he can make millionaires or put thousands of people on unemployment, but those decisions carry little liability as long as they are within his right to make.
You are comparing two men from two very different worlds. One designed products that changed the world forever, and made it possible for thousands of new industries to emerge. The other placed bets, moved money, and manipulated markets. Both of these men are to be admired. One as an inventor and innovator, and the other as a gambler.
Both took great risks and are far more worthy of having their pictures on the school room walls then most dead presidents.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
You are comparing two men from two very different worlds. One designed products that changed the world forever, and made it possible for thousands of new industries to emerge. The other placed bets, moved money, and manipulated markets. Both of these men are to be admired. One as an inventor and innovator, and the other as a gambler.
Both took great risks and are far more worthy of having their pictures on the school room walls then most dead presidents.
As with Steve Jobs, Gates is a master at copying what others have done and marketing it - seldom or never as an inventor or innovator - he and his have always been "first to be second". Or even third or fourth to be 'second'. And as we see, that can be an excellent place to be - put him at the top of the 'rich guy' list. Doesn't hurt that IBM had such poor vision - another one of those 'bad management' cases.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2012, 02:32:12 PM
As with Steve Jobs, Gates is a master at copying what others have done and marketing it - seldom or never as an inventor or innovator - he and his have always been "first to be second". Or even third or fourth to be 'second'. And as we see, that can be an excellent place to be - put him at the top of the 'rich guy' list. Doesn't hurt that IBM had such poor vision - another one of those 'bad management' cases.
I guess I'm unfamiliar with what Steve and Bill copied.
Are you saying that some poor bloke invented DOS, Windows, iPhone, iPad, and all of the technologies that followed?
Sure, once you get to the top, everything else is just a race to market, but that in itself is also worth admiration.
I'm sure that there are successful people that you don't hate?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
You are comparing two men from two very different worlds. One designed products that changed the world forever, and made it possible for thousands of new industries to emerge. The other placed bets, moved money, and manipulated markets. Both of these men are to be admired. One as an inventor and innovator, and the other as a gambler.
That's a fascinating formulation. Does the "gambler" moniker hold true for Mitt, too?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 02:40:08 PM
I guess I'm unfamiliar with what Steve and Bill copied.
Are you saying that some poor bloke invented DOS, Windows, iPhone, iPad, and all of the technologies that followed?
Sure, once you get to the top, everything else is just a race to market, but that in itself is also worth admiration.
I'm sure that there are successful people that you don't hate?
He probably took "Pirates of Silicon Valley" as gospel in geekdom.
Quote from: we vs us on February 03, 2012, 02:54:41 PM
That's a fascinating formulation. Does the "gambler" moniker hold true for Mitt, too?
Somewhat? What's wrong with gamblers?
Without risk-takers, everyone would be on welfare and no one would be around to pay for it.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 02:58:42 PM
Somewhat? What's wrong with gamblers?
Without risk-takers, everyone would be on welfare and no one would be around to pay for it.
Nothing in particular wrong with gambling, per se . . . but I could hear your disgust for Buffet over here at my desk, though. Not a lot of glowing superlatives in your description.
Quote from: we vs us on February 03, 2012, 03:01:29 PM
Nothing in particular wrong with gambling, per se . . . but I could hear your disgust for Buffet over here at my desk, though. Not a lot of glowing superlatives in your description.
On the contrary. I admire Buffet. I just admire Jobs and Gates far more. I in no way mean to downplay the importance of money-movers.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 03:13:33 PM
I just admire Jobs and Gates far more.
I would think you'd admire the people who actually invented the technologies more. As Gates once said to Jobs regarding Windows copying MacOS,
"Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's house before I did and took the TV doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo."
Also, how private equity works:
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/01/27/what-is-private-equity/
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 02:40:08 PM
I guess I'm unfamiliar with what Steve and Bill copied.
Are you saying that some poor bloke invented DOS, Windows, iPhone, iPad, and all of the technologies that followed?
Sure, once you get to the top, everything else is just a race to market, but that in itself is also worth admiration.
I'm sure that there are successful people that you don't hate?
Please pardon the repetition here...
Bill copied CP/M, then copied Apple (Macintosh).
There were variations from which DOS was derived. CP/M (Gary Kildall) was DOS where you had to swap floppies between each operation. DOS' big improvement was to make it so you could leave the disk in between times - essentially the only difference. Got to DOS 6 which was finally a pretty decent little way to move around in the system. (Kildall was kind of stupid - he let IBM cool their heels when he should have been selling his product.)
Then came Windows 3. Almost a useable "monitor" system for a computer - notice I did NOT say operating system. It wasn't. But derived from stealing from Apple, who stole from Xerox.
Multi-tasking came from all the computer operating systems before Windows - and was LONG overdue by the time they finally released it. Then took another 15 years to get it workable! (20+ years behind the Macintosh...)
Word exists because of Wordperfect. Excel after Lotus.
Steve Jobs copied everything that Apple does.
Steve copied Xerox for the 'windows' type system that he put in the Macintosh. The i-Everything is a copy of what other people had been doing for years. Pod as a smaller version of Sony Walkman. Phone - well that's obvious. Pad - something that has been talked about for decades and arguably started with the little "electronic address books" of the late 70's. If want to go back far enough, it is an electrification of a clipboard - with lots of bells and whistles.
Copied Altair which came out in 1975, while Apple I didn't come along for a year or so later.
Xerox Alto was first 'desktop' style machine to use a mouse and graphical user interface (Mac and Windows).
Lot of things going on in the 70's (and 80's) and a lot of people were seeing new product niche's for things others had done. Almost an "infill" process going on - fill the gaps in areas made obvious from an advance in one area. Infill still going on. We are still trying to fill all the holes where technology has not yet penetrated. Not much that is truly "new" going on - we are deriving!
I don't hate Bill. Or Steve Jobs. Or Buffet. I admire them and what they have accomplished. Have worked with the first two's 'stuff' since the early days. First IBM PC in 1982 using DOS 1.1, them upgraded to 2.0, then 2.2. - see link below for picture of first one that I still have (another first to be second or third or fourteenth). First Mac in 1984 - much nicer, but the screen was too small.
I don't lionize or deify them, though. They have all done fantastic things that I can only dream about through abilities that I don't have. Or haven't been able to capitalize on....
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_intro.html
I am not sure I would look at Buffet as a 'gambler'. Although his acquisition of BN seemed to be a little bit of a gamble, 99.8% of his other investments have been in areas where growth is inevitable. He does not make off the cuff decisions, they are well thought out. They are not short term decisions either. If he is buying, he is buying to hold, not sell in 3 months. From what I remember of Berks acquisitions, it is to acquire a company or business that is already well run and secure in its financials... whereas Bain bought, evaluated and either completely reorganized or shuttered... or Completely reorganized, took 500 Million in funds and then went into bankruptcy (Stewart or Colbert had something on that the other day).
Buffet is a Business man who wants to make money and does not want to make bad decisions and wanted to make sure all the employees were not put at risk.
Bain (Mittard) would turn a bad situation into a good one, for his company, I don't think he really cared much for the employees of the companies they bought out. Of course that is really just my opinion on him.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 03:13:33 PM
On the contrary. I admire Buffet. I just admire Jobs and Gates far more. I in no way mean to downplay the importance of money-movers.
Buffet has been a massive "enabler" for the companies he invests in. Allowing them the luxury of getting a capital infusion to grow/expand. Creating jobs, markets, new products, etc. etc.
Why are you guys still acting like I'm being derogatory towards Buffet?
He's an increadable business man.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2012, 12:54:34 PM
He can donate his own money - as he has stated in a matching donation scenario, so he already IS paying more.
Only by matching a challenge to a group of people to do something that at least most of them don't believe in. Big whoop.
I did locate that one Senator put up about $49K
Edit: fix typo
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 03:31:31 PM
Why are you guys still acting like I'm being derogatory towards Buffet?
He's an increadable business man.
I wasn't acting like you were being derogatory - I didn't think you were at all.
My 'enabler' comment was to try to point out that he has enabled many companies to create jobs, etc. He does what he does best and lets management do what they do best and it works beautifully. Well, maybe except Coca-Cola...they have been pretty sluggish in recent years.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 03, 2012, 03:50:17 PM
Only by matching a challenge to a group of people to do something that at least most of them don't believe in. Big whoop.
I did locate that one Senator put up about $49K
Edit: fix typo
Just one so far. And so, from the commitment I made a few weeks ago, that means I owe $1. Will do what Buffet is doing and wait until the end of the year.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 08:35:46 PM
Just one so far. And so, from the commitment I made a few weeks ago, that means I owe $1. Will do what Buffet is doing and wait until the end of the year.
I see Buffet's challenge to be a lot like if I challenged you to raise money for Murdoch or any other RWRE group or candidate. I don't have enough money to not put a limit on it just incase you choose to try to empty my wallet but you get the idea.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 08:41:58 PM
I see Buffet's challenge to be a lot like if I challenged you to raise money for Murdoch or any other RWRE group or candidate. I don't have enough money to not put a limit on it just incase you choose to try to empty my wallet but you get the idea.
He is just gonna match whatever they put in.
I said I would match at my relative scale - $1 per each member of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and the Supreme Court. So I could conceivably be out several hundred dollars. I think I'm safe - shouldn't cost more than a couple dozen dollars...if that much.
I could see donating to Ron Paul. For some of the things he believes in...but then taking it back for others.